Bicycle Safety Study

The Monash Alfred Cycle Crash Study (MACCS), a collaboration between Monash University, Alfred Health, VicRoads, and Bayside and Kingston City councils, examined the causes and outcomes of crashes involving 158 cyclists presenting to the Emergency Departments of Sandringham Hospital and the Alfred over a 12 month period.

Comprehensive interviews with participating cyclists and an in-depth analysis of the causes and injury outcomes were conducted to help inform more effective crash counter-measures.

Cyclists answered a range of questions covering all aspects of their cycling experience including health and demographic details, distance ridden, bicycle, clothing, road conditions and events leading up to and during the crash. Their injuries were also recorded.

Lead researcher and emergency physician, Dr. Paul Biegler, of both Monash University where he is a Research Fellow in Human Bioethics, and Alfred Health, said the results highlighted a number of key aspects contributing to crashes.

"We found that the use of bicycle lights was protective, independent of time of day, with cyclists failing to use lights having a threefold increased likelihood of serious injury, compared to cyclists using lights," Dr. Biegler said.

"This suggests that greater cyclist visibility allows those involved in a collision more time to take avoidance action, reducing impact severity."

Nearly half of cyclists sustained impact to the head during crashes, evidenced by damage to their helmets. Further, chances of head injury increased threefold with speeds above 20 km per hour, and increased fivefold with speeds above 30 km per hour.

"These findings reinforce the benefits of helmet wearing, especially for cyclists travelling at speed," Dr. Biegler said.

One third of the crashes involved collisions with cars and just under half of those cars were parked.

"Crashes into the open door of a parked car, or 'dooring' accounted for six per cent of all crashes," Dr. Biegler said.

"Encouraging safe interactions between cyclists and vehicles through education, road design, and traffic regulations is of vital importance.

" MACCS did not include third-party interviews, necessarily excluding fatal crashes. Dr Biegler said the study, conducted as a pilot, had contributed important insights, but that further research was needed.

Read more at: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-07-prompts-safety-precautions-cyclists.html#jCp

matt20 said:

Nearly half of cyclists sustained impact to the head during crashes, evidenced by damage to their helmets. Further, chances of head injury increased threefold with speeds above 20 km per hour, and increased fivefold with speeds above 30 km per hour.


Read more at: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-07-prompts-safety-precautions-cyclists.html#jCp

Click to expand...

Well, that's fairly conclusive for the for the pro-helmet argument. And since ebikes travel at between 20-30kph (in Australia and Europe), that puts us firmly in the higher head injury risk bracket. I'm off to buy a pair of knee, wrist and elbow pads too. No doubt the US anti-safety league will chime in though, citing no particular reason not to wear a helmet other than messed up hair and the slight inconvenience of putting it on.

Confab said:

No doubt the US anti-safety league will chime in though, citing no particular reason not to wear a helmet other than messed up hair and the slight inconvenience of putting it on.

Click to expand...

I'm not anti-safety, but I am anti-nanny state. I wear a helmet all the time, and recommend them to others. I just vehemently oppose mandatory helmet laws.

I think you'll find most people in the "anti helmet" camp actually are of like mind... opposing helmet laws, not helmets.

Just be cautious when choosing a helmet.

A lot (most?) bike helmets only really provide fairly low-speed impact protection, and provide precious little protection against hitting a projection of some kind. The UK standard for bike helmets is based on protecting the head against impacts from the sort of speed you'd get when falling off when stationary, not that typical for a bike - car interaction. Some of the better bike helmets, used by the downhill and BMX folk, are probably better, but AFAIK there's no standard for these, at least here.

If you regularly travel at speed on an ebike then I'd suggest a motorcycle type helmet is the only thing that's going to provide you with proper head protection, not the bit of flimsy plastic and polystyrene with lots of holes that is a typical bike helmet. I'd hate for someone to think they are getting decent protection from one of these lightweight bike helmets at any speed much over a walking pace, because in all probability they aren't. The kinetic energy in an accident is proportional to the square of speed, so ride twice as fast and there is four times more energy available to damage your head.

Of course it's better to have a helmet on in the event of a crash, just like it would be better to have a helmet on if you slip on a wet floor and your feet go out from under you, or you're at the beach back pedaling on the wet hardpack to catch a football or frisbee and trip over an ice chest. ER Doctors are of course very pro helmet because they see only the results of crashes.

I'm not anti-helmet. I'm anti-crash, and the study isn't conclusive about anything other than that it's better to have protection in the event of a crash, which isn't debatable.

What is debatable is whether helmets increase overall safety. There aren't less people dying and getting seriously injured per 1000 cyclists with increases in helmet use. Since they can and do help in the event of a crash, then that can only mean there are more crashes with increased helmet use.

Why is that? There are many possible reasons, some more significant than others, but they add up to no meaningful change in overall safety.
1. Education about avoiding crashes is lower and the focus of many if not most is that safety begins and ends with "Wear a helmet." When I was a kid bicycle riding safety was covered in school. I bet it's only "Wear a helmet" now.
2. Behavior changes with vs without a helmet- Quite simply, if you feel safer it affects your focus and the way you ride. LFP didn't have a helmet to wear the week he was here and I guarantee he didn't ride in the same manner he does when suited up. I can feel it in my own riding. I put the lid on and my brain feels cozy and protected, and that along with the much greater wind noise results in my thoughts wandering to topics other than absolute focus only on the road and everything around like when I ride utterly exposed with baseball cap, shorts, t-shirt, and flip flops like I mostly ride. In that state no other thought than riding enters my mind. I like it because it's an escape from the thoughts of anything else in life and liberating with heightened senses and everything on full alert status. That's just my road riding and doesn't even get into the plain stupid shit people do thinking they're protected by a helmet. It's just human nature just like you tread more carefully along a cliff than walking on a flat wide path, feeling safer affects what you do. Look at what people do riding around protected in their steel cages.
3. Car drivers pass closer if you have a helmet on. After hearing about that British study, I analyzed it myself here and I saw the same results.
4. Helmet wind noise reduces your ability to hear what's around you, and hearing is an important sense while riding.
5. Helmets make you hotter. The effects can range from sweat in your eye distracting you at just the wrong time, to changes in reflexes and thought patterns. eg Hot and uncomfortable has you thinking about being hot and uncomfortable, which diverts your attention somewhat from focusing strictly on the road.

Those are the factors that come to mind right now. The bottom line is that riding on 2 wheels can be quite a safe activity if you ride with care. Attention and focus is what keeps you safe, and no amount of protective gear can prevent a crash. I ride in a manner that makes me as safe or safer than walking down the sidewalk. I don't wear a helmet doing a lot of activities that are just as dangerous, so I'm generally not going to wear a helmet and anyone telling me I have to is an idiot.

I try to avoid riding at night when it is far more dangerous, and injury and fatality rates go way up at night. Lighting helps us be visible, but our ability to see both the road surface and all around us is greatly diminished. I wear a helmet when forced to ride at night, and ride slower too. The same is true for wet conditions, which I also try to avoid.

Kids are a different story. Their crash rates are through the roof, and even at their lower speeds injury and fatalities rates per capita are high. They need more than just a helmet in terms of gear. Plus they need education and experience, so don't let it end with making sure they wear their gear, just like you don't only hold their hand crossing the street, you teach them how to look both ways and then again as they start to cross.

Just like car drivers are different from each other, so are bike riders. Going lidless isn't for everyone. In my own case, for most of my riding I don't need or wear one, just like I don't wear one around the house. If someone wants to wear a helmet, fine, to each his own. I just disagree that they increase overall safety. "Overall" doesn't mean some aren't better off with one on. Even the type of bike drastically affects the likelihood of helmet paying dividends even in the event of a crash.

It's a simple fact that mandatory helmet laws for bicycles don't have the desired result. Plus they result in a perception that cycling is dangerous, and combined with other factors like girls don't want to mess the hair, etc, that reduces ridership. Reducing ridership is bad, especially since the greater our numbers, the safer we become. Then there's better health, fewer cars on the road, and on and on.

John

John in CR said:

I'm not anti-helmet. I'm anti-crash...

Click to expand...

Well said John, not just the above quote but the whole post.

John in CR said:

Helmets make you hotter

Click to expand...

I rode 12-15 miles near every day last winter, pedal-only. Most days I wore a motorcycle helmet. When it gets down below 40F, I can handle the extra heat build-up. Below 25F, I really need the protection from the cold. Wearing the m'cycle helmet I can focus on the road, the drivers, the other hazards because I'm not worried about frostbite.

But once Spring arrives and the environment warms, it becomes the wrong tool for the job. The heat becomes unbearable and is definitely a distraction. Time to switch to the bicycle helmet.

Which brings us to the most important factor in safety - said much more eloquently by other ES members in various safety related posts... Think! Taking a minute to assess risk, and how to best minimize it - that's the most important factor in safety. I wonder if the referenced study looked at people's processes to evaluate risk.

In the summer I rarely ride at night, so I leave the headlights behind. Fewer wires and junk to worry about. But if I'm going somewhere in the afternoon, I think: "What's the chances I won't come home till after dark?" and as a result I then bring the headlights as necessary.

One final thought. The last time I crashed, about 3 years ago, I was wearing my bicycle helmet, and it likely saved my life. But back then I wore the helmet out of habit, not as part of a "think before you ride" process. The direct cause of the crash was me riding like a douche. I look back at that event and wonder - if I was doing risk assessments then instead of safety habits, would I have ridden differently, avoiding the crash altogether? The answer is "probably yes".
It's no coincidence that that's the last time I crashed.

MattyCiii said:

Which brings us to the most important factor in safety - said much more eloquently by other ES members in various safety related posts... Think! Taking a minute to assess risk, and how to best minimize it - that's the most important factor in safety. I wonder if the referenced study looked at people's processes to evaluate risk.

Click to expand...

Well said, and by using what's between your ears you can make cycling so safe that the odds of a helmet even coming into play are extremely small. Imagine how people would react to mandatory helmet laws for walking, but somehow it's the okay for bikes, which is statistically safer over the same distance.

Helmet arguments to the side, it seems to reinforce my opinion that you must ride like you are invisible because you are.

Visiblility clothing and lights help a lot, but only if the drivers of cars look out the windows of the cars.

As for getting doored, I refuse to ride where I'll get doored. Never been doored in my life and never will.

The study is laughable, e.g. judging head injuries from examination of damage to the helmets of ER admissions. Also:

One third of the crashes involved collisions with cars and just under half of those cars were parked.
"Crashes into the open door of a parked car, or 'dooring' accounted for six per cent of all crashes," Dr. Biegler said.

Click to expand...

So 1/3 of the crashes were to parked cars, but only 1/6 were 'dooring'? The others were presumably the bicyclist running into a parked car hard enough to go to the ER! Possibly with helmet damage?

By the way although jh is correct that the energy goes as the square of the speed (if you run into a brick wall or parked car) but the power dissipation goes as the cube (you dissipate that energy against the parked car with an extra velocity multiplier) so helmet cracking goes as the cube of the speed.

I'd certainly wear a helmet if I intended to do something dangerous, but most of the time I want to ride as safely as possible. In my experience a helmet does not increase ride safety, rather it attracts crazed drivers who like to swish by with a few centimeters of clearance. I have a meter long fishing rod sticking out to the left, with a big flag hanging down. Oddly, the only time it was hit was when I was wearing a helmet doing a downhill regen measurement on a back country hill.

Hey folks! Did anyone notice the "lights" part of the study? That is where the lifesaving is according to Monash. These guys are world leaders in bike safety studies and the data suggests that being noticed really can affect the outcome of a crash. I generally don't ride fast but we do light up with front/rear Magicshines, the rear ones flashing red and the front flashing white, during the day. This, unfortunately leaves our flanks exposed but I do know cars notice us! One driver even complained to me about the brightness of our lights! In the daytime. I'd rather have a complaining driver than one who hit me!
otherDoc

dak664 said:

By the way although jh is correct that the energy goes as the square of the speed (if you run into a brick wall or parked car) but the power dissipation goes as the cube (you dissipate that energy against the parked car with an extra velocity multiplier) so helmet cracking goes as the cube of the speed.

Click to expand...

You're right, power does go up as the cube of velocity, but it's energy that is key in terms of damaging something. You can apply very high power levels to something for short periods of time and have little or no effect. Structures (including helmets and the human skull) fracture at reasonably well defined energy levels, not power levels.

There's a lot of evidence to support this from crash dynamics. The bit I was associated with for a while was looking at light aircraft crash damage relative to mass and velocity, and it was very apparent that there is a fairly linear correlation between damage severity and kinetic energy, not power. We were using this evidence to support structured safety regulation based on maximum aircraft mass and stall speed (as most aircraft impacts happen at close to stall speed).

docnjoj said:

Hey folks! Did anyone notice the "lights" part of the study? That is where the lifesaving is according to Monash. These guys are world leaders in bike safety studies and the data suggests that being noticed really can affect the outcome of a crash. I generally don't ride fast but we do light up with front/rear Magicshines, the rear ones flashing red and the front flashing white, during the day. This, unfortunately leaves our flanks exposed but I do know cars notice us! One driver even complained to me about the brightness of our lights! In the daytime. I'd rather have a complaining driver than one who hit me!
otherDoc

Click to expand...

Yeah, I always keep my lights on (car and bike) during the day. Makes no sense to have them off when a car could notice me 2-3 seconds earlier because I have them on.

Well I'd be interested in that study. Classically, stress is proportional to strain until the elastic limit (aka damage) is exceeded. That relates to force, not energy.
That is what airbags are all about, reducing the peak force while absorbing the total energy.

docnjoj said:

Hey folks! Did anyone notice the "lights" part of the study? That is where the lifesaving is according to Monash. These guys are world leaders in bike safety studies and the data suggests that being noticed really can affect the outcome of a crash. I generally don't ride fast but we do light up with front/rear Magicshines, the rear ones flashing red and the front flashing white, during the day. This, unfortunately leaves our flanks exposed but I do know cars notice us! One driver even complained to me about the brightness of our lights! In the daytime. I'd rather have a complaining driver than one who hit me!
otherDoc

Click to expand...

I've been riding everywhere lately with my lights on, they're not as bright as magicshines, but they're enough to make me more visible.

As for lighting up the flanks, wheel reflector are better than nothing, and some tyres have a reflective stripe which probably adds a little extra visibility also.

I guess some sort of side light would be better, in fact I've seen some people riding around with small LED lights mounted in their handlebars isn't a bad idea.

Sometimes people put power in the discussion because p=mv is used, and mistakenly interpret it as power instead of impulse or Ft (force x time). A helmet, air bag, crumple zone, etc. are all about extending the length of t over which a force is exerted thereby reducing the peak force as dak noted.

Science gotta love it. I am for applying all science to performance, especially safety, especially lights and especially helmets. Put enough science in a helmet and they eventually become pretty cool.

Why so many resist helmet laws may be the overarching problem of resource allocation, and the many examples of changing the light bulbs while the house is burning down.

Motorcycle lighting. Works great; people really can see me in just about any nighttime situation. Daytime, depends on if they're paying attention, but at night people go way around me almost always, and they actually heed my turn signals and brake lights, even in daytime, whereas hand signals for those are usually ignored or not even noticed or worse, not understood, even by the police!


Whatever lighting you use, don't use just "bright" lighting, use lighting with a lot of surface area. A pinpoint bright light is just blinding, while the same luminance over a larger area is easy to see from quite a distance.

Test it out sometime: Point your bright flashlight down a street, then go a hundred yards down the street and look at it.

Now put up a white box facing the same direction, and set the flashlight (or two or three, if you want closer to the same luminance as direct lighting) so it reflects off of that, then go to the same spot on the street and tell me how it looks.

Or even just go take the film/slide/negative adapter off your image scanner, with it's white plexiglass cover, and set it where the flashlight was and go down the street and look at that. It's not really all that bright, but it's typically much larger surface area is very noticeable. (I used to use one of these as DayGlo Avenger's headlight, which was not for me to see with but rather to be seen by, and it worked VERY well, because it was almost equally visible from nearly 180 degrees left to right and in front...but it's CCFL bulb is fragile and would not likely be suitable for offroad or trail use, though it worked fine on our bad roads here).


Anyway, visibility is indeed key--if you aren't seen, you can't be avoided in a bad situation. If you are seen, you at least have a chance. If you see them and react yourself, you have a much better chance.

RE: lights.
I place Magic Shine's on the outer edge of my left and right handlebars. The thought was - from afar, look like an oncoming car. Good for oncoming cars and those coming out of side streets. But over time I've found the majority of my interactions with cars it with those overtaking & passing, and a great way to be seen (in the dark, this doesn't work for day riding) is to aim the light straight down and illuminate the road under the bike (and for bonus points, put it into blink mode).

This comes from my observation of how lights on cars work. Next time you are out on a dark night, really observe what makes cars visible. What I notice are the tail lights, reflections of ambient light on the shiny parts, and the headlights illuminating the ground in front of and to the front sides of the car. The headlight illumination is actually quite large/wide.

When I started riding with my lights rigged this way, passing cars started giving me more room.

That's one reason I use the old Honda tailight on CrazyBike2 and now also on the Fusin Test bike, becasue it has a "license plate illuminator" as part of it, with clear lens on the bottom of the otherwise red-lensed taillight/brakelight. So it always lights up the back of the bike and the road, even brighter when i brake, at least on the Fusin Test bike. On CB2 it has a CFL in there instead of an incandescent two-filament bulb like FTB, so it is *always* brightly lit as if braking, and I have a separate LED brake light bar from a wrecked car in a junkyard mounted above the taillight, for brake signalling.

DayGlo Avenger just has a motorcycle LED tail/brake light, and no white lighting of the road; I keep plannign to remedy that by using a scanner's film/slide/transparency adapter (whcih also usually run on 12V) pointing down, mounted under the rack just forward of the taillight, above the wheel in some otherwise unused space. Using the entire unit means it would be easy to seal it against water, and would be less fragile than using just the CCFL bulb from it in something like a clear tube.

I also have often considered doing the same thing along the downtube of my regular bikes, kinda like the "Down Low Glow" stuff I've seen for sale, and also installing them in the center frame of CrazyBike2, so it would be kinda lit up inside.

I have plans to light up the grating I will likely use as covers for the full-suspension cargo bike that is still under construction, a little like the Dogati's battery box is done, only probably using the entire CCFL backlight/diffuser units out of old broken LCD monitors and/or laptops, because I have a number of those and I don't have any other flat-panel lighting like EL stuff that would produce useful amounts of light.

I do have two green EL panels from very old grayscale LCD panels from some ancient laptops I cant' even remmeber what they were, but they are old and sun-faded (found in a scrapheap somewhere, IIRC), and dont' put out a lot of light. They make nice nightlights you can barely read by, but that's about it. The other problem is they are green, which isn't a legal color of lighting on the roads here that I am aware of. I think if you're a non-emergency vehicle you get white, amber, and red, and any shade between those, depending on where you are emitting the light from on the vehicle. They dont' usually bother bicycles with wrong color lighting, because I guess they figure at least it HAS lighting, but they could use it as an excuse if they felt like it.

Don't forget turn signals. Letting motorists know your intentions is definitely a good thing. We are far less predictable to them than they are to us, except when they adopt the attitude of they're bigger and we must yield, in which case they don't care.